Saturday, March 22, 2008

Let the personal destruction of Brenda Martin begin.

Well, you knew this was coming -- the panty-sniffing brigade known as the Blogging Tories are circling the defenses around Dear Leader and, by God, the knives are out for Brenda Martin. And that means using whatever means necessary to dig into her life as far back as it takes, and pry out whatever dirt is available, and smear her utterly. Because that's just how they work.

One can only think -- if the BTs spent this much time and energy reading and learning stuff, they wouldn't be such retards, would they?

P.S. You can see the talking point forming here, can't you? "At first, I was sympathetic, until I learned all this disturbing stuff about her.". No, that's not what happened. Her, let me tweak that a bit for you: "At first, I didn't give a fuck about some old bag in a Mexican prison. But when she started to be an embarrassment to Stephen Harper, that's when I went looking for disturbing stuff about her."

See how much better that reads? It even has the benefit of being true.

BY THE WAY (and make sure you truly appreciate what I'm about to say), the Blogging Panty Sniffers would dearly love you to believe that their disdain for Martin is based on whatever sleazy innuendo they've managed to dig up in the last day or two.

But understand well that the BTs were already monumentally uninterested in Martin long before they ever got a sniff of anything untoward about her. They didn't care about her for the longest time and, now that it's become necessary to attack her, they're working desperately to, in hindsight, find ammunition to justify that disdain.

But it's too late -- you can't apply all that seething hatred retroactively. The BTs most certainly didn't give a rat's ass about Martin long before they started to rip her life apart, looking for justification. And that's not something they can walk away from.

"In addition I have read comments by one of her employers co-horts stating that she was a terrible cook. In fact, according to him, she was always drunk. It sounds like there was much more alcohol consumed than there ever was food eaten."

Good God, it's like they've finally got a Cindy Sheehan. Can speculation as to the state of her gynecological health be next?

I will not read these people...I just cannot. Back when I was going to a cottage without indoor plumbing, we had a Kybo. One trip to the kybo was enough, and I don't know how you folks can go back, again and again.It seems to me that our very own flavour of right wing zealots are using the gameplan of their cousins south of the border, and hopeing that they will become famous a la Malkin, Coulter, Dembski, Goldburg (sic) et al. After all, those cretins were handsomely rewarded for their moronic and subhuman spoutings. Our own garden variety wants to be rewarded too.Ergo, Malkin et al attacked a 12 year old boy, stalked his family and pretty much terrified him for daring to appear in an ad for health care for children; and remember, these are fetus fetishists. Once the fetus leave the womb, they don't give a damn. However, not one paper in the Corporatocracy ever pounced on these vipers, and their fame only grew among the truly pathetic. Our home growns watched what happened to the south and are trying to emulate that success, so they too can become famous and rich. Pathetic puppies, because I hope and believe that they bought a ticket on a train route, whereby the train company was faltering and the route had been discontinued. At least, I hope so. I still won't read these cretins. As an aging person, my brain cells are already starting to deteriorate. I can'[t afford to lose anymore, particularly for these cretins. Better you than me, but thank you for taking that burden off my shoulders.

Well then, I guess that seals it! Any rotten treatment she receives at the hands of the deeply corrupt, demonstrably incompetent Mexican legal system is entirely justifiable retribution for her personal “sins”...

Good grief, these people are unspeakably foul excuses for human beings.

By the way, I keep hearing the charge made that she was working in Mexico “illegally” (without a “Green Card” as many wingnuts put it, although that’s an American term). Does anyone have any actual proof of this? It seems quite central to their argument that she’s not worthy of the government going to bat for her rights to decent treatment and a fair trial in a timely fashion.

So if I'm clear on this, their beef is that she worked for a guy who gave loud, messy parties and that she didn't cook very well? Oh and that she realized that her boss was up to no good (and quit because of it) and that this made her nervous about the police?

"It's like their priorities are completely reversed...the less significant someone is, the more concerted and defamatory the character assassination."

Actually Ti-Guy, I think you have hit upon a fundamental truth as to the true nature of the BTs here. You are right, if you notice over a long period of time watching these people, they save most of their venom and hatred for people who can't or won't ever fight back. For instance, poor people in Katrina... poor people in general, individual aboriginals - but never the AFN, or Indian Organizations or Indians with deep pockets like say Phil Fontaine. And they damn sure don't attribute any of the blame for the coruption in Indian Act governance upon the DIA's collusion with corruption.

If you pay attention, over time you will notice this trend... Their blogs are nothing but bullypits for whatever rage-induced psychosis that they happen upon or actively seek out to jusify their bitter angry outlook on life.

But they are careful... interestingly enough to always target people who they can mess with from afar, and never be called to account for their behavior. And you are right, the more powerless and insignificant their target is, the more rage and fury they direct at the individual.

Oh.. and then you add to this that they say these disgustingly inflamatory comments and are then subsequently SHOCKED and UPSET that somebody is inflamed or outraged by their outrageous conduct.

Kate has a hairtrigger temper for ANYBODY who DARES to contradict her. She is NEVER EVER wrong. I have NEVER seek Kate apologize for ANYTHING she has written or said. In fact the more outrageous something is, the more likely she is to dig her heels in to defend herself to the end and simultaneously lash out at those who would offer criticism, correction or new information that contradicts her position.

Nobody is allowed to disagree with Kate. She only allows comments to appear that contradict her if the majority of her winged monkeys go into overdrive to attack the person who is daring to offer a different point of view.

Ian Scott once challenged her on the Draft, and on the issue of justice involving a wrongfully convicted man. She flew into a rage at him, even though they had been good buddies before.

All Dawg did was contradict Kate once and quote various comments on her blog, and Dawg was bannished from Kate's kingdom.

In a way it reminds me of my son when he was about 9 years old. He really really really hated being contradicted, regardless of how erroneous one of his comments might have been. He would have temper tantrums where he'd lash out because he simply did not like to be challenged to back up his statements. I honestly think that with some of these people, the most vicious and nasty of the BTs that they are about 9 years old emotionally and psychologically. They simply never matured.

It's like if ANYBODY has a different point of view on some subject, this is an assault on their very being. Everybody SHOULD agree with them about everything, and anybody who doesn't is EVIL. This stuff about Brenda Martin is CLASSIC "splitting off and projection" on their part. They aren't even aware they are doing it. Now they are looking to demonize the woman because her existence, as a blight on the record of the Harper Government is extremely threatening to them personally. Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney can't just come out and tell the woman to F Off. That wouldn't be in keeping with the expectation of the Canadian People for their government.

So instead, Sandra Buckler gets her "talkers" out there to try and do damage to this woman's reputation so that Brenda Martin won't be a liability any longer. Seriously - don't all these LOCK-STEP.. "I was concerned for Brenda Martin until...." posts all have the same tone and message? They are all designed to do the same thing... Demonize this woman, and therfore neutralize the threat to the Harper Government because of all the bad publicity this has caused them.

Somena, are you saying that Sandra Buckler is feeding the BT bloggers talking points? Cause if she is, this is something that needs to be exposed - big time. The opportunity to wrap the Blogging Tory racist, wingnut crazy pool around Big Daddy's neck and ring it like a fucking bell is just too delicious for this girl to ignore.

That shit might play in Delisle but other parts of Canada (where people are sane) might have some serious problems with it.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that the more prominent members of the BTs are fed their talking points very quietly and very privately from on high, and the rest of the sandbox just unthinkingly and reflexively takes their lead from that.

But I have absolutely no idea as to how you'd prove that. And, as they say, is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.

I don't think Canada has as many regulations about how MP's communicate or what communication they have to keep, but it doesn't matter anyway. The Internet makes it too easy to circumvent any regulations you can establish.

It also doesn't matter because rightwingers pick up on the "dog whistles" their authoritarian leaders communicate. Sandra Buckler or whoever just has to say something completely normal and sensible (such as 'Canadians are subject to foreign laws when abroad') and alpha wingnuts like KKKate take that and construct a narrative, which then is repeated endlessly and re-formulated more crudely as it moves down the wingnut food chain.

We do know that KKKate go a hold of Belinda Stronach's cell-phone number at one point, so it's obvious that CPC insiders are willing to communicate with the likes of her and that's significant enough. Everyone does that as well, but the CPC's motives are far, far darker.

If you read over Walks With Coffee's posts from the election year, you will note that prior to the inception of the Blogging Tories, when Walks was in the Cons Big Tent, he was asked by top CPC people to set up a web network similar to the US election between Kerry and Bush to effectively "swiftboat" anything against Harper by CPC critics. He has the emails between himself and MPs and EDA's for various ridings when this strategy was first thought out.

A few months later after Eugene had left over rancid racist crap about Aboriginals from the party which nobody would step up to the plate and say "This point of view does not represent this party" over -- The Blogging Tories was "born".

We know from Stephen Taylor's narrative that Kate McMillan was an integral part of the creation of the blogging tories.

Euegen caught Craig-Ferrethouse lying about the connections between the BT's and the Party. When Eugene started to hound them about money for advertisements and 3rd party financing regulations, Ferrethouse quit for several months and then slunk back to his position later when Walks-With-Coffee wasn't around to go after him.

Seriously - what does Stephen Taylor DO for a living. How does he afford to go to Ottawa and do his podcasts with various CPC hacks?

Progessive bloggers jumped all over Euegene, trying to claim that his criticism of payola for blogging was an attack on free speech. Eugene Plawiuk, one of the most ardent critics of Walks-With-Coffee over this issue ended up apologizing when the money trail was uncovered. Email Eugene for more details. He can refer you to the investigative blogging he did on this subject. He was one of the only people who understood that despite the original claims by the Blogging Tories that this was a "free speech" issue, that ultimately when you look at the Blogging Tories, even though they present themselves as grassroots, in actual fact, all evidence points to astroturfing, that the CPC has paid for, and expended resources to develop and promote.

They try to play this down but it doesn't work. Why do you thinK Janke was so obsessed with getting paid for blogging. Well, it seems that he might have been given that idea by his CPOC handlers.

More recently, financial statements have surfaced that indicate that some prominent BTers were getting payola, or were going to get payola for being Sandra Buckler's "Talkers".

Google "Sandra Buckler Talkers" for my post about it.

Then there was the CPC woman, Carole Jamieson who Steve Janke went to town on, at the behest of Sandra Buckler. She had lots of contacts in the party. She was told that Stephen Taylor and other prominent BTers were getting talking points to "amplify" certain messages.

It backfired on Janke, Kate and Taylor when their handler gave them false info about Jamieson which she was easily about to contradict. The nature of the info about her was such that it was clearly given to these bloggers by a CPC operative... just like Belinda Stronach's phone number.

Janke and Taylor corrected their libelous posts about Jamieson, and all went so far as to say they had a "source" that was high placed in the OLO as an excuse for running with the false info.

Many people questioned this "source" when it emerged that the info was incorrect about Jamieson, and basically Taylor and Janke and Kate were caught disseminating incorrect info about Jamieson.

I think that's when the BTers were exposed as being tools of the OLO. And Sandra Buckler was head of communications for the OLO.

Jamieson contends that Buckler has a few well placed "talkers" and they use these "Talkers" to disseminate "not ready for prime-time" talking points to "swiftboat" critics and people who are causing embarrasment to Stephen Harper.

The Blogging Tories is run by people who are simply propaganda hacks for Harper and the Conservative party. From it'd earliest conception to the present time that's all it is.

Sad that aside from CC and Robert McLelland, Plawiuk and WWC -- nobody really goes out of their way to point out the dishonesty of these hacks. A lot of progressives think that progressive blogs, and liblogs and the blogging dippers are in the same category as the BTs.

It's simply not true. They are completely different in make-up and motives in what the individuals participating are doing.

Oh.. btw - I think that's the real reason Stephen Taylor won't ever kick Kate McMillan from the BT blogroll. He's in for a penny, in for a pound over the inception of the Blogging Tories with McMillan.

If he were to dare unlink her or criticize her, she could unerath skeletons in the closet of the Harper Administration's activities online. And do you doubt that she wouldn't?

Think about it -- Various other people have been kicked for saying things a LOT less rotten than McMillan. But Taylor lets Kate remain. It's strange isn't it?

That's why I think it's great the CC pounces on Taylor over and over again for allowing himself and his creation to be associated with such vile bigotry.